Amended bill would raise court reporter transcript fees by next year

A bill to raise court reporter transcript fees by about a third was amended on Friday to go into effect all at once, rather than phase in over three years. If successful, AB 1385 would institute the first increase in these rates since 1990.

But a pair of appellate attorneys' groups have raised issues about AB 1385. The California Lawyers Association said any change should be accompanied by more money for a Transcript Reimbursement Fund for pro per and pro bono litigants that has frequently been shut down due to a lack of money.

The state Supreme Court ruled last year courts must make court reporters available to litigants who can't afford them. Jameson v. Desta, 2018 DJDAR 6643 (Cal. 2018).

AB 1385 was set to be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee a week ago but was pulled at the request of its author, Assemblyman Miguel Santiago, D-Los Angeles, and has yet to be rescheduled. But the amendments filed by Santiago's office last week would institute the full increase on Jan. 1 rather than phasing in over three years as originally drafted. Santiago's office did not comment by press time.

The bill would raise the statutory fee for transcripts from $0.85 to $1.13 per 100 words. This amount comes nowhere close to matching the increase of cost of living in California since the last increase. The bill is sponsored by the California Court Reporters Association (CCRA) and has been moving forward easily with widespread backing from court reporter organizations and labor groups.

"Court reporters deserve to be fairly compensated for their work, just like everyone else in this economy," said Assemblymember Santiago in an emailed statement. "Three decades have come and gone since court reporters received a rate increase, and in that time the cost of living in California has skyrocketed by more than eighty percent."

But the Appellate Litigation Section of the California Lawyers Association sent Santiago a letter on June 12 expressing concerns that the bill should also "address the effect that the increased cost of transcripts has on litigants who cannot afford to pay for them."

The group went on to say "failure to provide a complete record, including transcripts of the relevant proceedings, is grounds for denying relief on appeal." It noted this was a key reason the state Supreme Court made its ruling in Desta.

A Thursday letter from the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers opposed AB 1385. That group has been pushing for years to transition courts to electronic recordings as a cost-saving measure.

An April Assembly Appropriations Committee analysis found the change in rates could impose $6.9 million in annual fees on courts. Much of the cost of the change would likely be borne by courts themselves.

Meanwhile, the Court Reporters Board of California's Transcript Reimbursement Fund keeps running out of money. It receives $300,000 in special funds annually in order to pay for pro per litigants to receive transcripts. According to the board, it has distributed more than $9 million for transcripts since being established in 1981.

But the board announced in April last year that it was temporarily shutting down the fund. According a November report to the Legislature, it received an uptick in requests during the 2017-18 fiscal year even before the Desta ruling last July.